She voiced outrage on Thursday at a court order demanding she undergo psychiatric evaluation in the case.

“I thought I had been through it all: well, no! For having condemned Daesh (IS) horrors in tweets, the ‘justice system’ is putting me through psychiatric tests! Just how far will they go?” she tweeted.

She later argued on BFM TV, a French 24-hour news broadcaster, that totalitarian regimes use such methods against opponents to “make them look like they’re crazy”. She told reporters she would skip the test. “I’d like to see how the judge would try and force me do it,” she said.

Le Pen has argued that she shared the images in response to a French journalist who drew a comparison between IS and her party. She later deleted the picture of Foley after a request from his family, saying she had been unaware of his identity.

The court declined to confirm it had ordered the psychiatric evaluation but magistrates said such tests were a normal part of this kind of investigation.

Le Pen’s argument that she was being persecuted was picked up by others on the European far right. Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Salvini said in a statement: “A court orders a psychiatric assessment for Marine Le Pen. Words fail me! Solidarity with her and with the French who love freedom!”

Absolutely: Solidarity with Marine Le Pen! You do not have to agree with her politics to be revolted by what the French state is trying to do to her, and why. Even Jean-Luc Melenchon, the far-left French politician, is defending her here. Le Pen posted documentary evidence of actual ISIS atrocities, in an attempt to demonstrate that there is no comparison between ISIS and her political party. So now, in France, simply posting images of actual, real-life events may be evidence of criminal insanity.

Do you not see where this is going? Do you not see why it must be stopped cold?

The Soviet Union used to declare dissidents criminally insane and imprison them in psychiatric units. And now the same sort of thing is manifesting in the West, by those who want to preserve liberalism at all costs. Those who challenge the regime, even with facts and images, will be taken to court and forced to submit to tests to prove that they are not criminally insane.

A breathtaking irony: the French state is doing this to silence those who criticize barbarians who would destroy liberalism.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 87 comments

87 Responses to Le Pen & The Sovietization Of France

@Al Bundy:
“A notable conservative figure–say, Rod–is publicly stripped of his civil rights and placed in stockades for denying the truth of transgenderism and the wisdom of open borders. As he cries out in protest, Grumpy Realist, public official, is standing there in suspenders with a clipboard to inform him: ‘Well, actually, Mr. Dreher, there is a high correlation between ‘problematic’ political opinions and violence. It’s all right here in the fine print.'”

– – –

LOL.

I actually quite like the term coined above by another commenter: corporo-centrist totalitarianism. Having no basis to discern right from wrong, we will enter a future where we simply fall back on the rules, which will be written, of course, by the corporate-technocratic complex and signed off by a political elite too lazy or compromised to say anything in response. This is frighteningly close to the EU today.

So, yes, I can imagine a future where they pull out some 2000 page book that no legislators have actually read (elected representatives are merely window dressing in this corporo-centrist totalitarian world, after all) and pointing to section 26, subsection J(iv) on the “Assessment of antisocial personality traits”. The bureaucrat tells our hypothetical persecuted writer who is strapped his psychiatric bed that “Yes, yes… See right here? This is all part of the rules. We must respect the rules!”

I have come to the sad conclusion that, as we lose all the intangible things that give our societies order — shared customs, norms, moral belief systems, culture, etc — we are basically doomed to a future where the rigorous enforcement of rules becomes necessary. And I think that the architects of our new globalist order know full well that they are deliberately bringing destabilizing forces into our nations. To maintain any sort of stable society while these destabilizing trends continue, they know that power is going to have to be turned over to the corporate oligarchs and their allies in the political class. We already see corporations making their first moves towards establishing a new, binding, progressive social framework. Disney and Amazon and Google and the rest of the oligarchs are becoming less subtle and more comfortable with promoting the progressive vision for the post-Christian moral order of the west.

None of this should really come as a surprise. As Matt in VA often points out, all of us already worship the God of Neo-Liberalism anyway, with its mantra of “Anything for greater shareholder profit and cheaper consumer goods!” Perhaps the only thing binding left and right together now is the shared belief that anything can be sacrificed for another tenth of a percent of GDP growth.

So, why not a corporo-centrist totalitarian future? We’re already 90% of the way there.

Well, it’s easy to tell here who has a legal background and who doesn’t….

Please remember that France doesn’t have the equivalent of the First Amendment. A lot of the squawking here seems to be nothing more than complaining that French law doesn’t work the same way as American law.

(For what it’s worth, I think the law as written is dumb particularly because it sweeps up people that weren’t originally considered possible targets, but that’s what the law is at present.)

Thanks for pointing out the craziness of this. It had crossed my mind, but hadn’t fully hit me until I read your post.

Defending Marine Le Pen publicly from any charges (not matter how crazy, like this) in most middle to upper class contexts in France can be social suicide. People’s eyes will simply glaze over, and powerful emotions will then guide often unpleasant reactions and shut down their ability to reason clearly.

The scary thing about this unbelievable treatment of Marine Le Pen, is that if it is accepted, it will be able to be used to any marginal political figure, even and especially the ones speaking truth to power.

Once again, Matt in VA crystallizes the real issue, and–in spite of Rod’s snarky comment–Marielle’s comment takes one step further into the truth.

I was one of those Reagan, JPII (although Protestant) baby boomers of the National Review, Conservative Inc. ilk. I was weaned on WFB Jr. and George Will, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Commentary.

Sadly, the “liberal internationalism” or “corporatist globalism” these people advocated for and I supported is leading to the destruction of our civilization. (JPII not so much here, but in spite of his political heroism, he was asleep to the corruption of his own church by sex and power.)

I agree with Rod on the Benedict Option, all the way. But is it possible politically any more? I wonder–as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic as it is–if such communities can ever get a purchase in the new world of the take no prisoners progs? A new federalism, where states can basically withdraw from the American imperium and the tyranny of left-wing, judicial rule, might allow for some kind of social peace. Absent that, there will have to be, as Marielle says, a “fight” (even though it is not very “nice” to say so.)

Martine Le Pen is not being “targeted” by this law. It is meant to crack down on Peaceful Religionists who view and share violent Peacefully Religious content on YouTube and other social media. The fact that Le Pen is being swept up in this is because they wrote the law so as to make it appear not Peaceful Religionist-specific. And because given that some prosecutor is being overzealous perhaps.

More broadly, a major problem for social conservatives in Europe is that the state has made social liberalism the only acceptable ideology, not because the populace themselves are that liberal per se but because Peaceful Religionists illiberalism provides a culturally and legally acceptable cudgel to give expression to the electorate’s antipathy towards said Peaceful Religionists. If there’s one thing Rod and his North American commenters on this blog get wrong its their overestimation of how far down the path of late-stage liberalism Europeans. We are not. We pretend to care about liberalism because it is an easy cudgel to beat Peaceful Religionists with. What we need instead is an active anti-Peaceful Religion policy free from the need to profess allegiance to liberalism. The Droompfist stampede currently engulfing the west is the Yuge Commission that will allow us to do what needs to be done.

Beowolf: “I’d rather the US govt crash and burn because of incompetency than to let the “experts” run it.”

And therein lies the failure of the right. Let the whole country burn because its not turning out the way you want. Its a suicidal and homicidal way of thought that is antithetical to any viable path forward for the rest of us

Conflating what is happening in France to what is happening here in America is akin to jamming a square peg into a round hole and is giving everyone the vapors.

Lets all fly off the handle, and take another ride on the outrage machine. That way we can continue justifying our seething hatred for the other side. Hatred for the same person that if you met in a bar you would probably be able to laugh with each other over drinks for half the night, comparing notes and talking about the kids and the spouse.

The Left’s use of the term ‘far-right’ is laughable; it’s obviously used as a smear.

Some on the ‘progressive’ Left are infected with the notion that they are somehow Morally Superior to everyone else. And yet they remain blind to the fact that they are on a political trajectory of intolerance and authoritarianism. Hence the UK’s banning of Lauren Southern, and now the ordering of Marine Le Pen to be subjected to psychiatric tests.

The authoritarian Nazis presided over a system of National Socialism. Times have changed. The real authoritarians today are not nationalists; they’re progressive-globalists.

The fact that a political rabble-rouser has decided to do the same to incite mob enthusiasm/stochastic violence and is getting swept up in the generality of the statute is simple a case of the biter getting bit.
grumpy realist

1) Can you tell me two policies advocated by Marine le Pen that you consider to be rabble-rousing, far-right, beyond the pale, neo-Nazi, whatever ?

2) Does the current Israeli government have similar policies?

3) Do you consider Avigdor Leiberman, the Israeli defense minister, to be a rabble-rousing, hate-mongering far-right figure?

Asked about civilian casualties in Gaza recently, he said “There are no innocents in Gaza.” In the past, he has advocated ethnically cleansing all Palestinians from Israel. What statements and policies of le Pen are worse than these, in your opinion?

Rod, with all due respect, it seems to me that, sometimes, you have a tendency to jump before you look (eg, your praise for the Romanian Brotherhood of the Cross). It’s the case here.

Keep in mind that the French judicial system is significantly different from the American one.

(1) Mme Le Pen is not being tried yet, she is being investigated (“mise en examen”).

(2) The psychiatric examination is, in this type of case, mandatory (see article 706-47-1 of the “Code de procédure pénale”); its absence could nullify the final verdict.

(3) Mme Le Pen cannot be forced to undergo such an examination. If she refuses to undergo the exam, the examiner will merely issue a “certificat de carence”, which will be submitted to the court at trial.

So, far from “Sovietization”, what we have here is a case of a politician discombobulated that she’s treated like an ordinary Jane — and milking it for all the free advertising she can get out of it.

Briggite Bardot, the French actress who later in life became an animal rights activist and was nostalgic for the France she grew up in, before mosques sprouted up everywhere, was fined 5 times for innocuously criticizing immigration policy. One of those times she wrote a letter to a newspaper objecting to the practice of Muslims slaughtering animals for the Eads festival on their patios. The offense cited was “inciting racial hatred.”

It makes you wonder why the satire magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was allowed to publish outrageous characterizations of Muhammed and Muslims. For certain, they didn’t deserve to be killed by terrorists, but the completely different treatment by the French government is puzzling.

This is a serious problem for Marine Le Pen, and all French people who care about freedom:

(a) If she refuses to undergo the State ordered psychiatric examination (think of it: not psychological, psychiatric!), the Etat will entangle her in an ever tightening web of lawsuits, coercion and threats;

(b) Worse, if she submits, the result is not hard to predict: she will be publicly stigmatized with a “mental illness”, and ordered to take “medicines”;

(c) It is this second part that’s insidious: who, in his or her right mind, would willingly swallow pills on the orders of such a State? Rhetorical question: would it be in the State’s interest to find the right suite of drugs to induce paranoia, anxiety, even hallucinations in the subject? And if her psychiatrists object, well, the State has even more “psychiatrists” who will insist. In the end, she can be reduced to a drooling idiot, paraded in front of the cameras with the comment: “See, we told you she was crazy, and so are all her followers”.

“Rod, with all due respect, it seems to me that, sometimes, you have a tendency to jump before you look (eg, your praise for the Romanian Brotherhood of the Cross). It’s the case here.

Keep in mind that the French judicial system is significantly different from the American one.

(1) Mme Le Pen is not being tried yet, she is being investigated (“mise en examen”).”

First of all, I’m not aware of Rod ever praising the Romanian Brotherhood of the Cross. I do vaguely recall one of his posts on Communist persecution of Romanian Christians, in which Rod excerpts from some memoirs. In that excerpt the narrator made a passing, somewhat positive reference to the Brotherhood of the Cross. But, again, the “meat” of the excerpt and of Rod’s post had nothing to do with the Brotherhood.

As to the issue at hand, the pertinent question, it seems to me, is: “Why is Le Pen being investigated in the first place?”

It’s obvious to any objective observer that she was not inciting terrorism when she tweeted the ISIS images.

The only reason she is being investigated for this, then, is because the establishment wants to nail her (or at least harass her) on trumped-up charges, to punish her for her politically incorrect views.

So, by extension, the only reason she is being asked to submit to a psychiatric evaluation is because of her views on immigration. No politically incorrect views, no investigation. No investigation, no psychiatric examination.

Are there some degrees of separation between this case and the USSR’s practice of labeling dissidents mentally ill? Certainly. Yet, given the reason for the investigation, this case is not *that far* removed from the USSR’s practice.

So the “Sovietization” metaphor is indeed appropriate. Chillingly appropriate.

@Fran Macadam
You’re absolutely right. Making sure that an individual investigated for an offence is mentally capable to answer questions is tyranny. And making sure that he is mentally fit to stand trial is “Sovietization”. Hello, George Orwell.

Do you consider Avigdor Leiberman, the Israeli defense minister, to be a rabble-rousing, hate-mongering far-right figure?

Yes. Which has no bearing on my view of Marine Le Pen. I’m not sure she would make a good president or premier or prime minister, because I’m not confident either of her administrative skills or her exact policies if she had a chance to govern. But, like Nigel Farage, she makes some sound points, punctures some balloons that need to be punctured, and kills some sacred cows. (No offense to Janwaar Bibi’s Hindu ancestry intended — its an English colloquialism).

Some on the ‘progressive’ Left are infected with the notion that they are somehow Morally Superior to everyone else.

All of which puts themselves outside the pale of either dialectical materialism or proletarian internationalism. Progressive and left are antonyms.

eowolf: “I’d rather the US govt crash and burn because of incompetency than to let the “experts” run it.”

Experts have their uses, but need to be kept on a short leash. I don’t know how many parts per billion of mercury causes miscarriages and brain damage, but I expect an expert to explain it to me so I understand it, not tell me “I’m an expert, take my word for it.” The leash is defined by Albert Einstein’s remark “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

Matt in Va, you’re very wrong about race/ethnicity being a significant factor in history before the French Jacobins and then Napoleon made it one.

Sigh. JonF tried to make a decent point and pontificates erroneously about the underlying historical facts. Race/ethnicity became a significant factor somewhat earlier than the Jacobins or Napoleon, and its open to debate how many centuries earlier. Its true that most empires and kingdoms were multi-ethnic. Its also true that, e.g., English, Welsh, and Scots had significant ethnic rivalries as they were brought under the rule of the English kind, albeit, genetic evidence shows that “racial” identity was more cultural than genetic, since 80 percent of the “Anglo-Saxons” were in fact genetically Celtic.

The modern notion of “race” was promulgated by the Spanish and Portuguese, then intensified by the Dutch and English, as each in turn took the lead in the African slave trade. Both the Jacobins and Napoleon merely reflected that established pattern, whether to tear it down or build it up again.

I’m not sure she would make a good president or premier or prime minister, because I’m not confident either of her administrative skills or her exact policies if she had a chance to govern.. Siarlys

Fair enough. But she is usually condemned in the media as being a far-right extremist, and I would like grumpy or someone else to articulate which of her policy positions makes her a far-right extremist, and whether Israel should be considered to be a far-right extremist state if they have similar policies.

The only response I usually get is that her father once said that the Holocaust was a minor matter in WWII or something to that effect, which is (i) an opinion, and (ii) her father’s opinion.

But, like Nigel Farage, she makes some sound points, punctures some balloons that need to be punctured, and kills some sacred cows. (No offense to Janwaar Bibi’s Hindu ancestry intended — its an English colloquialism).

No offense taken as long as they are not Indian cows (old joke among Indians in the US).

Marielle says: “We’ve been clanging the bells for years, but ‘conservatives’ kept punching right and refused to fight back as they kept their bow ties spiffy…Conservatism, Inc. got its ass handed to it in the culture wars by people confused by their own genitals. It’s the most embarrassing defeat in human history…So now you guys come along with your, oh, my, these people are not very nice, indeedy no! Welcome to where the rest of us have been for 20 years…Now talk down your signed glossies of William Buckley, reduce the soy intake, roll up your sleeves, and get ready to FIGHT.”

I suppose this goes for lancelot lamar and Kurt Gayle, too, but the idea that “conservatives…refused to fight back…in the culture wars” would be laughable – grimly laughable – to any rank-and-file abortion rights or SSM activist. Access to abortion has diminished over the last eight years, with hundreds of anti-abortion bills being passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures and signed by GOP governors. Conservatives responded to the first court cases legalizing same-sex marriage with state laws and constitutional amendments barring it in over 20 states. I was actually glad to see the pro-SSM side do the hard work of fighting to overturn those bans through the state legislatures and state referenda rather than relying solely on the courts, even if the final victory was one through the latter. But the idea that conservatives – yes, even Conservatism, Inc. – just rolled over on social issues over the last 20 years denies reality, and it blinds you to the reasons WHY so many grassroots feminists and LGBT folks hate your guts.

It’s not post-modernist or intersectional theory, let alone modern transgender theory, that motivates liberal or progressive animus against the right. It’s the fact that they feel like they are finally getting back some of their own from the right-wingers and conservatives who were all too happy to pile on and keep/beat them and theirs down. I will happily agree with you that some of that anger is misplaced, since social activists across the political spectrum don’t direct nearly enough of their anger at the economic elites and the economic/political system they have forged for their benefit over the last 40 years. But as someone who defended abortion clinics from Operation Rescue, leafleted for the armed self-defense of abortion providers and donated to organizations set up to pay for abortions for poor women and girls living in states with severely limited access, who lived through the AIDS crisis and saw the right-wing backlash that resulted in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and has heard/read enough snippets from right-wing talk radio hosts and opinion leaders like Coulter and Horowitz to make my ears and eyes burn, this “Woe is me, we’ve been a bunch of softies” self-characterization of social conservatives is really preposterous (and whiny!).

I will throw you one bone, though. “Conservatism, Inc. got its ass handed to it in the culture wars by people confused by their own genitals. It’s the most embarrassing defeat in human history” is a great line and kinda true, at its core.

Fran Macadam says: “Not all that diverse, actually, since a certain culture, religion and ethnic group are explicitly excluded.”

Oh, if the anti-male circumcision crowd gets its way, they’ll be coming after the Muslims and the Jews, Fran. I’ve had the on-line arguments and seen the demonstrators in the streets, and they’ve gotten pretty close to banning it for any reason in at least a couple of Northern European countries, and the personal shaming of families with circumcised little boys has apparently spread all the way to the beaches of Australia.

There’s a reason why conservative Muslims and Jews used to be open to voting for Republicans and Tories, but a combination of endless Western wars in majority-Muslim countries, the US/NATO destruction of other such countries, and a certain degree of mindless and racist anti-immigrant sentiment and law enforcement entrapment (side-by-side with dereliction of duty in the UK, it seems) has overwhelmed the social issues that once brought conservative and traditionalist “peoples of the book” together.

Yes, yes, yes, Marine LePen’s psychological examination is required under this law, so the mere fact of the examination itself shouldn’t be such an issue. What SHOULD be the issue is (a) the law itself, and that psych exams are mandatory under it, and (b) prosecutorial overreach. Should she have been charged under this law at all? It sure as hell sounds to me “NO!”

By the way, leftist websites like Black Agenda Report are reporting that they are also being ignored/hidden by the new Google algorithms. Which just goes to show what some of us on the far left (Trotskyists, mainly, the Stalinists and Maoists usually having too much affinity for the past practices of the USSR and Mao’s PRC) have always said, free speech and other restrictions on civil liberties or expansions of state power will inevitably be used against the left as much as or more so than against the right. I do not doubt that the same is or will be true in the coming period. It’s a pity I didn’t buy that mafia-sponsored anti-RICO T-shirt I saw at the San Gennaro festival 30 years ago in New York City.

What many people do not seems to understand is that for the liberal regime it is the trial / investigation itself which IS the punishment. Most of the time they know that the courts will declare you innocent but that is missing the point – the point is that nobody wants to go through the trouble of years in court, in the process being branded as a possible criminal and having your face splashed across the papers. When eventually you are found innocent nobody will know – it will be reported in some corner of a paper years down the line – the damage would have been done and never undone. The point is to humiliate you and to make you suffer because of your ‘contrarian’ opinion.

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” — Theodore Darlymple

Re: Race/ethnicity became a significant factor somewhat earlier than the Jacobins or Napoleon, and its open to debate how many centuries earlier.

Well, ethnicity certainly existed and ewas recognized, ever since prehistoric times. What I posted was narrower than that: Ethnicity was not a significant driver in politics and notably not in war. Wars were mainly due to the rapacity of the ruling class seeking to increase its bottom line.

As far as male circumcision goes, attempts to ban it in Germany has motivated Jews and Muslims to march arm in arm to protest.

When I was born it was a standard hygienic practice. I went to school with mostly Catholics and Lutherans, and I can’t recall ever seeing an uncircumcised male classmate taking showers after gym class.

I think its a good idea. Its hard enough to get a growing boy to clean behind his ears.

I suppose it is an argument that the best way to fight Hitler would be to occupy the same political space as the Nazi party BEFORE the Nazi party.

This is true, actually. No party gets wins the plurality Hitler won in Germany’s last free election without tapping into a vein of inchoate mass discontent that is willing to try anything that promises “hope and change.” Someone should have offered those desperate people a better option before Hitler made the offer that, in desperation, they took. There were working class voters who supported the Nazis… the social democrats were too deeply embedded in the failure of the existing government, and the communists didn’t quite get their act together as a better alternative.

Voltaire belief could be summarized as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Modern France evolved past this racist, fascist, xenophobic, +++ obscenity to the heights of post-soviet truth.

American sovietization is well along the way. Universities are already there, and corporations are coming there fast. All that’s left are ‘obsolete’ people like Mr. Dreher who stand between the USSA and ascending totalitarians.

When international capitalist corporations are on board, whatever is happening, is is NOT “sovietization.” Without the “white working class” as well as all the rest of the working class, there can be no workers’ councils.